Lens question for photographic thicko

[carrera2]

Hello

I'm an utter new kid when it comes to photography and have been admiring your work in here for a while.

The type of shots that interest me are the fairly close up ones with a really small depth of field. I've been trying to achieve these with my camera with limited success. I've got a Nikon D100 with the standard lens and the zoom lens (200mm I think) which came in the package.

Could you recommend me a lens with a (presumabley) smaller f-stop that would make these types of pics more dramatic?

Any other tips on this type of photography very welcome

Thanks in advance.

[matthew_h]

It sounds like you are after a Macro lens.

Not sure which one to recommend as I am a Canon man but if you let us know a budget I am sure someone can help you out.

[carrera2]

No real budget as such but I don't want to spend money on a top notch lens if my ability can't match it (i've got the car for that ). I guess £2-300 is the most I'd want to pay for such a lens...

Edited by carrera2 on Friday 9th March 10:09

[sidaorb]

Have a look at a Sigma 24-70 F2.8, can normally pick them up for a resonable price. Again I'm a Canon user, but have used the Sigma in the past on the Canon with great results.

Carl

[beano500]

How about Fleabay-ing?

I picked up a nice 55mm Micro-Nikkor for...Oh, I can't remember - about £50 I think!

[megy]

I am sure Nikon do one same as the canon, i have a 50 mm 1.8, very good.

[carrera2]

Ok thanks for the pointers so far

I'm going hunting at lunchtime so I'll let you know how I get one.

[GetCarter]

This is the lens you want - currently one on ebay from Hong Kong. Buy in the UK for about £300

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NIKON-AF-60-Mic

Steve

[Famous Graham]

Yep, the smaller the f number (which does, in fact, mean a wider aperture - it's counter intuitive) the shallower the Depth of Field. Which, loosely translated, means the distance away from you that is in focus is less "deep".

ie at f/22 for example everything from 2 feet away to 200 feet away is in focus.
at f/1.8 only the things 2 feet to 4 feet are in focus. Serves to isolate the subject from the background.
(I'm making up the numbers)

Can make it harder to nail the focus though as you have such little room for error.

[carrera2]

Cheers Graham - that was how I thought it worked...looking forward to putting it into practise!


Any thoughts on this one - www.kingsleyphoto.co.uk/prod.php?prod=335 ?

[sidaorb]

Have a quick look at these might be one worthwhile for you.

www.ephotozine.com/classifieds/


Carl

[carrera2]

GetCarter said:

This is the lens you want - currently one on ebay from Hong Kong. Buy in the UK for about £300

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NIKON-AF-60-Mic

Steve

Thanks Steve - just tracked down a second hand one with a years guarentee for £225 so off to collect in a bit. Cheers!

[GetCarter]

Top tip in case you want to get really close:

(ignore if you know this)

If you set the focus to manual and 1:1 (ie as close as it will go) then move the camera closer and further from the subject to get focus - that's the easiest way of getting really sharp pics (esp of moving objects). You then just have to try and guage the depth of field (which is paper thin and can be a nightmare!).

Two of mine using said method.

www.stevecarter.com/2005/drop2.jpg

www.stevecarter.com/macro/eyes.jpg

Steve

Edited by GetCarter on Friday 9th March 11:28

[carrera2]

Great tip, I look forward to having a go at similar photos myself.

[UKBob]

sidaorb said:

Have a look at a Sigma 24-70 F2.8, can normally pick them up for a resonable price. Again I'm a Canon user, but have used the Sigma in the past on the Canon with great results.

Carl

re: the post above, have a look at my gallery:
www.shutterstock.com/gallery-64427p1.html

Every single photo in there was taken with the canon eqivalent of the lens mentioned above, ie 24-70 and f2.8. Its a good all round lens. And Im sure the sigma is roughly on par with the canon, or near enough.

[Famous Graham]

GetCarter said:

Top tip in case you want to get really close:

(ignore if you know this)

If you set the focus to manual and 1:1 (ie as close as it will go) then move the camera closer and further from the subject to get focus - that's the easiest way of getting really sharp pics (esp of moving objects). You then just have to try and guage the depth of field (which is paper thin and can be a nightmare!).

Two of mine using said method.

www.stevecarter.com/2005/drop2.jpg

www.stevecarter.com/macro/eyes.jpg

Steve

It's really the only way to do it without tearing your hair out And why such things as rail tripod heads exist (you can slide the camera toward and away from the subject as well as the usual pan/tilt)

[carrera2]

carrera2 said:

GetCarter said:

This is the lens you want - currently one on ebay from Hong Kong. Buy in the UK for about £300

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NIKON-AF-60-Mic

Steve

Thanks Steve - just tracked down a second hand one with a years guarentee for £225 so off to collect in a bit. Cheers!

Got it Along with a neutral filter to keep it clean.

I'll put a few trial shots up over the weekend at some point for your critical analysis

[Nacnud]

carrera2 said:

Got it Along with a neutral filter to keep it clean.

Do your own tests - but I found that compared with the unfiltered lens, the UV filter I protected my lens with caused flare (night and into the sun), loss of contrast (shadow detail) and loss of critical sharpness.

It took me years to realise this and was shocked at the difference once I did some comparisons.
I do still add filters to my lenses, but only to enhance the image (e.g. polariser); never to protect the lens.

I've also seen the the problem on other peoples cameras.
E.G. An EOS 10D user I was 'teaching' was getting less detail in his tripod landscape shots than I was with a hand held Powershot S40; the 10D was critically sharp once he took his UV filter off. Later that same day he had replaced his filter and we were doing some urban night shots; his shots were full of lens flare artefacts, we took his filter off and his images were instantly flare free.

[carrera2]

Just popped back to this to say thanks to Getcarter for the recommendation and others for their input. It's a great lens and I'm chuffed to bits with the results.

I can't really put any up here though I'm afraid as they were mainly of a friend's new baby and I wouldn't be happy making those public - I'm happy with the outcome though.